Afghanistan Reflections
Ras Siddiqui October 8, 2001
#55 Posted by nasah on October 10, 2001 10:34:58 am
An excerpt from the editorial by Najm Sethi in Friday Times -- Stand up and be counted.
``September 27 was billed as a day of national solidarity. On that day General Pervez Musharraf asked the people of Pakistan not so much as to choose between the Taleban and America as to stand up and be counted in the ranks of those who oppose extremism and reject narrow-minded isolation. Accordingly, notable rallies were held across the country.
Two salient facts about these rallies stand out. The religious parties were conspicuous by their absence. And the mainstream political parties, especially those who have incurred the military government’s wrath on more than one count like the Peoples Party and the MQM, were very much in attendance.
Thus while the mullahs are burning effigies and threatening jehad against the government for upholding the national interest, the politicians have set aside their quarrels with General Musharraf and are backing him to the hilt in this difficult moment for Pakistan.
There is a lesson in this for the wise men and women of General Musharraf’s government.
During a national security crisis, internal political differences should be sacrificed at the altar of the supreme national interest.
Our difficulties have just begun and the worst is yet to come. If the politicians have understood this point and demonstrated wisdom by supporting General Musharraf, the government should reciprocate by building a formal national coalition to steer the nation-state into safer waters.
This is a time to close ranks, a time for international credibility and not domestic accountability.``(FT)
``September 27 was billed as a day of national solidarity. On that day General Pervez Musharraf asked the people of Pakistan not so much as to choose between the Taleban and America as to stand up and be counted in the ranks of those who oppose extremism and reject narrow-minded isolation. Accordingly, notable rallies were held across the country.
Two salient facts about these rallies stand out. The religious parties were conspicuous by their absence. And the mainstream political parties, especially those who have incurred the military government’s wrath on more than one count like the Peoples Party and the MQM, were very much in attendance.
Thus while the mullahs are burning effigies and threatening jehad against the government for upholding the national interest, the politicians have set aside their quarrels with General Musharraf and are backing him to the hilt in this difficult moment for Pakistan.
There is a lesson in this for the wise men and women of General Musharraf’s government.
During a national security crisis, internal political differences should be sacrificed at the altar of the supreme national interest.
Our difficulties have just begun and the worst is yet to come. If the politicians have understood this point and demonstrated wisdom by supporting General Musharraf, the government should reciprocate by building a formal national coalition to steer the nation-state into safer waters.
This is a time to close ranks, a time for international credibility and not domestic accountability.``(FT)
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#54 Posted by amit on October 10, 2001 10:34:58 am
Ras, the US should take this opportunity to destroy these terrorists operating in Afghanistan. At the same time, it is an excellent opportunity to sit down and resolve some of the issues like Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Kashmir. These problems require all sides to accept a compromise. Once people see the cancerous effects of these conflicts lingering on forever, they will see the need for negotiated solutions. Moderate muslims all over the world have to help out the west in order to achieve these negotiated solutions.
There is also a lot of room for creativity. For e.g. a post-war Afghanistan could be given tremendous foreign aid to rebuild itself. It could become a homeland for displaced muslims all over the world including Afghan refugees, Chechen refugees, Kashmiri refugees and even Palestinian refugees, as long as they are all committed to building a new nation. In other words, Afghanistan could be a place where muslims from all over the world build a prosperous nation with generous financing from the rest of the world.
There is also a lot of room for creativity. For e.g. a post-war Afghanistan could be given tremendous foreign aid to rebuild itself. It could become a homeland for displaced muslims all over the world including Afghan refugees, Chechen refugees, Kashmiri refugees and even Palestinian refugees, as long as they are all committed to building a new nation. In other words, Afghanistan could be a place where muslims from all over the world build a prosperous nation with generous financing from the rest of the world.
#53 Posted by amit on October 10, 2001 10:34:58 am
Re:Romair#44
Why did the Pakistani army choose to create and support the Taliban in the first place ? If they wanted to install a friendly regime in Kabul, they could have created and supported a moderate pro-Pakistan outfit. After all, the Taliban was a nascent force that was able to develop thanks to Pakistani support. Pakistan could have extended the same level of support to some moderate outfit. That would have given it the strategic depth while ensuring a stable Afghanistan.
This decision to create the Taliban casts fundamental doubts on the professional and modern credentials of the Pakistan army. I have personally known Pakistanis who have served in their army and airforce. They are indeed very polished, well educated people. However, one has to wonder what inspired the army to support such a venture in Afghanistan. People rightly suspect that there are a lot of closet fundos, who do not appear that way but sympathise with the fundo cause.
Why did the Pakistani army choose to create and support the Taliban in the first place ? If they wanted to install a friendly regime in Kabul, they could have created and supported a moderate pro-Pakistan outfit. After all, the Taliban was a nascent force that was able to develop thanks to Pakistani support. Pakistan could have extended the same level of support to some moderate outfit. That would have given it the strategic depth while ensuring a stable Afghanistan.
This decision to create the Taliban casts fundamental doubts on the professional and modern credentials of the Pakistan army. I have personally known Pakistanis who have served in their army and airforce. They are indeed very polished, well educated people. However, one has to wonder what inspired the army to support such a venture in Afghanistan. People rightly suspect that there are a lot of closet fundos, who do not appear that way but sympathise with the fundo cause.
#52 Posted by shammi on October 10, 2001 10:34:58 am
From The News (sorry no persistent hyperlinks)
Ex-ISI chief victim of his over-ambition
News Analysis
By Shakil Shaikh
ISLAMABAD: Deposed ISI Chief Lt Gen Mahmood Ahmed became a victim of his ``over-ambition`` in the glory of powers he was enjoying as Pakistan`s super spymaster.
He tried to outmanoeuvre his seniors in hasty moves to grab the coveted office of Vice Chief of Army Staff, and at the end himself fell flat. Three key incidents were reported to have terminated his career, though many saw in the person of `retired` Lt Gen Mahmood as an emerging dark horse for the office of the Vice Chief of Army Staff.
Firstly he prevented President Gen Pervez Musharraf from visiting Kandahar for a one-to-one meeting with Taliban spiritual leader Mulla Mohammad Omar.
Secondly he misbehaved with almost all the key military and civil aides to the President and one of the service chiefs in a meeting held after his return from the United States in the second week of last month.
Finally he refused to accept President Gen Pervez Musharraf`s offer to become Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and tried to influence the President to change his mind through common friends. (end of quote)
A persistent link to the story is available at:
http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/oct/10ny11.htm
Ex-ISI chief victim of his over-ambition
News Analysis
By Shakil Shaikh
ISLAMABAD: Deposed ISI Chief Lt Gen Mahmood Ahmed became a victim of his ``over-ambition`` in the glory of powers he was enjoying as Pakistan`s super spymaster.
He tried to outmanoeuvre his seniors in hasty moves to grab the coveted office of Vice Chief of Army Staff, and at the end himself fell flat. Three key incidents were reported to have terminated his career, though many saw in the person of `retired` Lt Gen Mahmood as an emerging dark horse for the office of the Vice Chief of Army Staff.
Firstly he prevented President Gen Pervez Musharraf from visiting Kandahar for a one-to-one meeting with Taliban spiritual leader Mulla Mohammad Omar.
Secondly he misbehaved with almost all the key military and civil aides to the President and one of the service chiefs in a meeting held after his return from the United States in the second week of last month.
Finally he refused to accept President Gen Pervez Musharraf`s offer to become Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and tried to influence the President to change his mind through common friends. (end of quote)
A persistent link to the story is available at:
http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/oct/10ny11.htm
#51 Posted by ali1 on October 10, 2001 10:34:58 am
RE # 44
Conspiracy theory
Contrary to public pronouncements, the US actually wants Pakistan to get destabalized so that it gets an excuse to attack and take out the nuclear capability.
One way of doing that would be to encourage an ambitious general (behind the scence of course) to stage a coup. Gen. Mehmood was stuck in the US after 9/11 and got the chance to interact with a large number of US officials and politicians. He was recruited by the Americans to stage the coup.
After the coup, US would have declared that Pakistan has been taken over by Islamist generals and attacked!!
Musharraf pre-empted by firing Mehmood.
Sounds good??
Conspiracy theory
Contrary to public pronouncements, the US actually wants Pakistan to get destabalized so that it gets an excuse to attack and take out the nuclear capability.
One way of doing that would be to encourage an ambitious general (behind the scence of course) to stage a coup. Gen. Mehmood was stuck in the US after 9/11 and got the chance to interact with a large number of US officials and politicians. He was recruited by the Americans to stage the coup.
After the coup, US would have declared that Pakistan has been taken over by Islamist generals and attacked!!
Musharraf pre-empted by firing Mehmood.
Sounds good??
#50 Posted by nameless on October 10, 2001 10:34:58 am
People your thoughts on this confession from Pakistan:
taken from Frontier Post:
http://www.frontierpost.com.pk/articles.asp?id=3&date1=10/10/2001
After Afghanistan, guess who is next?
Farhatullah Babar
Updated on 10/10/2001 11:19:50 AM
It is amazing how we seem to be quite oblivious of the looming dangers to Pakistan in the `Get Taliban and get Osama ` operation.
True, Pakistan had no choice but to reverse its decades old Afghan policy.
True also, that we had to be on the side of the international coalition in its war against terrorism.
But does it also assure us that the looming threat to our own security and integrity has been averted? Just on the second day of the strikes inside Afghanistan the US shot off two ominous warnings: The terror war will last for several years, and the strikes will go beyond Afghanistan.
The warnings have not been delivered in off-the-cuff remarks before reporters.
They have been formally conveyed in a letter sent to the United Nations.
Washington`s intention to strike the terrorists` hideouts beyond Afghanistan has been announced loud and clear.
Two sets of pictures published in the newspapers, one of fighter bombers raining fire on Afghanistan and the other of loaves of bread air-dropped, underlines a subtle message: we identify friends even if they are interspersed with the enemy.
Tomorrow, by the same token a search may be launched for foes among friends.
A great proof offered against Osama and Al-Qaeda and accepted by Pakistan and others is that once upon a time he publicly denounced Americans as the enemy of Palestinian and Arab Muslims and therefore liable to be killed.
With such evidence regarded as credible, it would not be hard to identify enemies of the United States allegedly sheltered among its friends.
In his interview with CNN last week, General Musharraf said that Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, whose accounts were frozen in the United States and Pakistan, had no offices in the country for it was operating inside Held Kashmir.
Next morning General Musharraf`s interview was juxtaposed in the newspapers with that of Harkat spokesman Amiruddin Mughal: ``Our offices are working as usual.
No one can close our offices because we are engaged in a just and legitimate struggle for the freedom of Kashmir from the Indian yoke.`` As if that was not enough, the Azad Kashmir Prime Minister Sardar Sikander Hayat said, ``The Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and other Kashmiri groups are doing jehad against Indian terrorism in Held Kashmir.
And to us not only those who are engaged in jehad but also those who help them are highly revered.`` On October 1, 29 people were killed when suicide bombers blew up a car outside the legislative assembly in Srinagar.
The Foreign Office did well to promptly condemn the attack as terrorism.
General Musharraf also rightly condemned it.
However, before the official condemnation, Maulana Masood Azhar of Jaish-i-Muhammad owned responsibility for the incident.
He even identified the suicide bomber.
Although later he denied having said this, the damage had been done.
Remember, Maulana Azhar Masood is one of the three persons whose release from an Indian jail was secured by the hijackers of an Indian plane hijacked to Kandahar in December 1999.
His utterances have been publicly denounced in the past by the Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider as most damaging to the interests of Pakistan.
When cruise missiles were fired at camps in Khost in Afghanistan in August 1998, six Pakistanis were also found among the dead.
When Bamiyan was captured, the United Nations reported that those taken prisoner also included some Pakistanis.
During the Kargil fight we claimed that the mujahideen sitting atop Kargil were not under our control.
But when the world pressured Islamabad, the same mujahideen descended from the mountains in no time.
In August 1999 a car bomb went off near the State Bank in Srinagar, killing 29 innocent people.
The Hizb publicly owned responsibility and warned of bigger strikes in the future.
Lashkar-e-Tayyaba even claimed that the car used in the operation had been arranged by it.
Drive down to Peshawar and you will notice billboards and wall chalking imploring the faithful to kill the leaders of infidels.
``Kufr key imamon ko qatal karo`` (kill the leaders of the infidels) exhort the wall chalkings, quoting what the Harkat claims is sanctioned by the Quran.
All these are ugly pictures, which we continue to ignore at our peril.
Most of our commentators are chanting hurrah.
They believe that the situation until recently, when India was wooed and Pakistan was treated as a pariah state by the US, had changed dramatically.
They see in it a great diplomatic triumph for Pakistan and contemptuously ridicule India`s bid to malign Pakistan and include `cross-border terrorism` also in the fight against terrorism.
We have led our people to believe that Islamabad has completely outwitted India.
This is most dangerous complacence.
Whether we like it not, there are dark signs on the horizon as the strikes are taken far beyond Afghanistan.
When the chips are down and the Taliban and Osama have been sorted out, somebody might dig out from the archives the State Department`s Patterns of Terrorism Report for the year 2000 citing Pakistan`s alleged support to the militants, their fund raising and recruiting new cadres in Pakistan and attacks on civilian targets.
It will be a poor consolation to be told then by the United States that Pakistanis are not our enemies as much as we are told today that the Afghans are not our enemies.
Are we prepared to face what President Bush promises to be a ``sustained, relentless and comprehensive`` war and warns of taking it beyond Afghanistan? I hope we are, but believe we are not.
taken from Frontier Post:
http://www.frontierpost.com.pk/articles.asp?id=3&date1=10/10/2001
After Afghanistan, guess who is next?
Farhatullah Babar
Updated on 10/10/2001 11:19:50 AM
It is amazing how we seem to be quite oblivious of the looming dangers to Pakistan in the `Get Taliban and get Osama ` operation.
True, Pakistan had no choice but to reverse its decades old Afghan policy.
True also, that we had to be on the side of the international coalition in its war against terrorism.
But does it also assure us that the looming threat to our own security and integrity has been averted? Just on the second day of the strikes inside Afghanistan the US shot off two ominous warnings: The terror war will last for several years, and the strikes will go beyond Afghanistan.
The warnings have not been delivered in off-the-cuff remarks before reporters.
They have been formally conveyed in a letter sent to the United Nations.
Washington`s intention to strike the terrorists` hideouts beyond Afghanistan has been announced loud and clear.
Two sets of pictures published in the newspapers, one of fighter bombers raining fire on Afghanistan and the other of loaves of bread air-dropped, underlines a subtle message: we identify friends even if they are interspersed with the enemy.
Tomorrow, by the same token a search may be launched for foes among friends.
A great proof offered against Osama and Al-Qaeda and accepted by Pakistan and others is that once upon a time he publicly denounced Americans as the enemy of Palestinian and Arab Muslims and therefore liable to be killed.
With such evidence regarded as credible, it would not be hard to identify enemies of the United States allegedly sheltered among its friends.
In his interview with CNN last week, General Musharraf said that Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, whose accounts were frozen in the United States and Pakistan, had no offices in the country for it was operating inside Held Kashmir.
Next morning General Musharraf`s interview was juxtaposed in the newspapers with that of Harkat spokesman Amiruddin Mughal: ``Our offices are working as usual.
No one can close our offices because we are engaged in a just and legitimate struggle for the freedom of Kashmir from the Indian yoke.`` As if that was not enough, the Azad Kashmir Prime Minister Sardar Sikander Hayat said, ``The Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and other Kashmiri groups are doing jehad against Indian terrorism in Held Kashmir.
And to us not only those who are engaged in jehad but also those who help them are highly revered.`` On October 1, 29 people were killed when suicide bombers blew up a car outside the legislative assembly in Srinagar.
The Foreign Office did well to promptly condemn the attack as terrorism.
General Musharraf also rightly condemned it.
However, before the official condemnation, Maulana Masood Azhar of Jaish-i-Muhammad owned responsibility for the incident.
He even identified the suicide bomber.
Although later he denied having said this, the damage had been done.
Remember, Maulana Azhar Masood is one of the three persons whose release from an Indian jail was secured by the hijackers of an Indian plane hijacked to Kandahar in December 1999.
His utterances have been publicly denounced in the past by the Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider as most damaging to the interests of Pakistan.
When cruise missiles were fired at camps in Khost in Afghanistan in August 1998, six Pakistanis were also found among the dead.
When Bamiyan was captured, the United Nations reported that those taken prisoner also included some Pakistanis.
During the Kargil fight we claimed that the mujahideen sitting atop Kargil were not under our control.
But when the world pressured Islamabad, the same mujahideen descended from the mountains in no time.
In August 1999 a car bomb went off near the State Bank in Srinagar, killing 29 innocent people.
The Hizb publicly owned responsibility and warned of bigger strikes in the future.
Lashkar-e-Tayyaba even claimed that the car used in the operation had been arranged by it.
Drive down to Peshawar and you will notice billboards and wall chalking imploring the faithful to kill the leaders of infidels.
``Kufr key imamon ko qatal karo`` (kill the leaders of the infidels) exhort the wall chalkings, quoting what the Harkat claims is sanctioned by the Quran.
All these are ugly pictures, which we continue to ignore at our peril.
Most of our commentators are chanting hurrah.
They believe that the situation until recently, when India was wooed and Pakistan was treated as a pariah state by the US, had changed dramatically.
They see in it a great diplomatic triumph for Pakistan and contemptuously ridicule India`s bid to malign Pakistan and include `cross-border terrorism` also in the fight against terrorism.
We have led our people to believe that Islamabad has completely outwitted India.
This is most dangerous complacence.
Whether we like it not, there are dark signs on the horizon as the strikes are taken far beyond Afghanistan.
When the chips are down and the Taliban and Osama have been sorted out, somebody might dig out from the archives the State Department`s Patterns of Terrorism Report for the year 2000 citing Pakistan`s alleged support to the militants, their fund raising and recruiting new cadres in Pakistan and attacks on civilian targets.
It will be a poor consolation to be told then by the United States that Pakistanis are not our enemies as much as we are told today that the Afghans are not our enemies.
Are we prepared to face what President Bush promises to be a ``sustained, relentless and comprehensive`` war and warns of taking it beyond Afghanistan? I hope we are, but believe we are not.
#49 Posted by manoj on October 10, 2001 10:34:58 am
a) If anyone thinks that democratic institutions can be established in Muslims lands , they are sadly mistaken. The thing which is needed most for democracy to flourish is tolerance. And indeed this is the thing that is absent in Islamic socities .( please dont quote what is written in Koran)
b) Attempts to establish some kind of democratic dispensation in Afganistan are also bound to fail.
c) Till there are petroleum reserves in the middle east, the regimes in Saudi Arabia etc will be propped by the Americans. The real downfall of Islamic nations will start when their oil reserves get depleted. The downfall of `Islamic rep. of Pukeistan` has however already started.
Where is the pop corn & soda?
b) Attempts to establish some kind of democratic dispensation in Afganistan are also bound to fail.
c) Till there are petroleum reserves in the middle east, the regimes in Saudi Arabia etc will be propped by the Americans. The real downfall of Islamic nations will start when their oil reserves get depleted. The downfall of `Islamic rep. of Pukeistan` has however already started.
Where is the pop corn & soda?
#48 Posted by ZafarA on October 10, 2001 1:02:17 am
Reply Karakoram # 38
``... I`m just glad some Talibs are getting a well deserved thrashing.. ``
heyyyyyyyyymaineaapkakyabigaaraajeeeeeee?
``... I`m just glad some Talibs are getting a well deserved thrashing.. ``
heyyyyyyyyymaineaapkakyabigaaraajeeeeeee?
#47 Posted by tahmed321 on October 9, 2001 11:45:53 pm
kafir khan #39 ``Taliban is baby of Pakistan. ``
You are genius my friend. How you find out this secret. I think only ISI know secret. And now you two and everyone on chowk three. Please, please dont tell RAW. OK.
Also: Does India have baby with beard? Hunh? India produce baby with no beard. Ha! Ha! Pakistan baby with beard!! Pakistan baby make India baby cry all over chowk. Ha! Ha!
You are genius my friend. How you find out this secret. I think only ISI know secret. And now you two and everyone on chowk three. Please, please dont tell RAW. OK.
Also: Does India have baby with beard? Hunh? India produce baby with no beard. Ha! Ha! Pakistan baby with beard!! Pakistan baby make India baby cry all over chowk. Ha! Ha!
#46 Posted by Romair on October 9, 2001 11:45:53 pm
The current passing over of two generals in the Pakistan military is quite interesting. Everyone has a theory. The obvious ones coming from India regarding connections with terrorism. Others coming from Pakistan`s local Chowk experts who achieved their expertise on the Pakistani military without having spent a day in it or having anything to do with it (these guys are amazing :-)). About as as unreasonable as people who yell and scream at the USA, without having spent a day in the US. One cannot debate with such people. One can only ignore them.
It goes directly in line with what I have been saying all along. People had suggested that Musharraf is in control of some sort of fanatics in the military. That he was in control of his corps commanders. I had always stated that it quite easy for the COAS to supersede and pass-over generals, who work for him. This is exactly what happened.
One only needs to look at the personalities of the Chiefs of the Army, Air Force and Navy to get an oreintation of the type of people who rise in the military. How exactly have people like Musharraf been able to make it to the top?
People somehow or the other tend to confuse military strategy with personal tendencies. This would make Alexander Haig and Ronald Reagan the biggest Mujahideen since they were the strongest supporters of the Afghan Mujahideen. Bush Sr. actually supported Saddam Hussain and Osama. It is always interesting when people start equating Pakistanis with Talibans, just because Pakistan has supported Talibans. There is a huge difference between supporting some policy strategically and being like someone.
Musharraf, in my opinion, is cleaning house on the people who support Pakistan`s old Taliban policy, and are unwilling to change. Out of a high command of around 12 Lt. Gens. this includes two or three Generals. This, of course, does not make these people themselves to be Taliban or fanatics (unless one considers Clinton a fanatic for supporting the Taliban initially also). The easiest way to do so is to supersede them. They, according to the Army tradition, automatically volunteer for retirement.
My guess is that Musharraf wanted to get rid of the CJCS responsiblity from his shoulders. So he had to pick someone. Since he could only pick one person, a few others would retire. He chose Gen. Aziz (the person who the Indian media has pointed to be an extremist, due to his Navy style beard; or because the Indian journalists know him personally :-); take your pick). This meant that Gen. Mahmood and Usmani retired. Pretty simple. I personally thought he would have picked Usmani, since they are the closest. And Aziz is considered more of a hardliner.
The only interesting part is the resignation of Mahmood (and the fact that Musharraf has replaced Muhajirs with non-Muhajirs; both Mahmood and Usmani are Muhajirs). My guess is that Mahmood was the sole voice who wasn`t on board completely with Musharraf (this, of course, makes the whole Army fanatics, in the eyes of some; in actuality it just means one person did not agree with supporting the US completely; as does Ayaz Amir). After all, it was Musharraf who appointed this guy.
Now only if the Pakistan`s political parties, beaurecracy etc. were able to make decisions based on merit and policy. One way to look at these changes is that somehow Musharraf has cleaned house of religious fanatics in the Army. Quite a ridiculous concept, since these people helped Musharraf in carrying out the coup, and were appointed by him in the first place. Did they become religious fanatics in one month? Religious fanatics rarely if ever make it past PMA; the few odd Generals who have become religious were more in line with JI, i.e. not fanatic. And they usually become so after becoming quite senior in the military; born again Muslims. The other is to realize that the military still is run by people like Musharraf, and consists of strong enough traditions where people can be superseded when not following policy. These people then resign (and don`t become OSDs) in line with tradition.
Take your pick. I personally don`t believe in conspiracy theories. But the genuises who claim expertise in Pakistan`s military, through third hand knowledge, will of course stick with the conspiracy theories. Primarily because that is the image that suits their interests. I feel sorry for such conspiracy theorists.
Why is it that people like Musharraf end up running the military, and not the religious fanatics, whom conspiracy theorists suggest are looming around freely in the Army. One would think at least two or three would have made it to COAS, in the Army, Navy or Air Force. The only one who made it was Zia, and he was a product of Bhutto, not a product of the military.
It goes directly in line with what I have been saying all along. People had suggested that Musharraf is in control of some sort of fanatics in the military. That he was in control of his corps commanders. I had always stated that it quite easy for the COAS to supersede and pass-over generals, who work for him. This is exactly what happened.
One only needs to look at the personalities of the Chiefs of the Army, Air Force and Navy to get an oreintation of the type of people who rise in the military. How exactly have people like Musharraf been able to make it to the top?
People somehow or the other tend to confuse military strategy with personal tendencies. This would make Alexander Haig and Ronald Reagan the biggest Mujahideen since they were the strongest supporters of the Afghan Mujahideen. Bush Sr. actually supported Saddam Hussain and Osama. It is always interesting when people start equating Pakistanis with Talibans, just because Pakistan has supported Talibans. There is a huge difference between supporting some policy strategically and being like someone.
Musharraf, in my opinion, is cleaning house on the people who support Pakistan`s old Taliban policy, and are unwilling to change. Out of a high command of around 12 Lt. Gens. this includes two or three Generals. This, of course, does not make these people themselves to be Taliban or fanatics (unless one considers Clinton a fanatic for supporting the Taliban initially also). The easiest way to do so is to supersede them. They, according to the Army tradition, automatically volunteer for retirement.
My guess is that Musharraf wanted to get rid of the CJCS responsiblity from his shoulders. So he had to pick someone. Since he could only pick one person, a few others would retire. He chose Gen. Aziz (the person who the Indian media has pointed to be an extremist, due to his Navy style beard; or because the Indian journalists know him personally :-); take your pick). This meant that Gen. Mahmood and Usmani retired. Pretty simple. I personally thought he would have picked Usmani, since they are the closest. And Aziz is considered more of a hardliner.
The only interesting part is the resignation of Mahmood (and the fact that Musharraf has replaced Muhajirs with non-Muhajirs; both Mahmood and Usmani are Muhajirs). My guess is that Mahmood was the sole voice who wasn`t on board completely with Musharraf (this, of course, makes the whole Army fanatics, in the eyes of some; in actuality it just means one person did not agree with supporting the US completely; as does Ayaz Amir). After all, it was Musharraf who appointed this guy.
Now only if the Pakistan`s political parties, beaurecracy etc. were able to make decisions based on merit and policy. One way to look at these changes is that somehow Musharraf has cleaned house of religious fanatics in the Army. Quite a ridiculous concept, since these people helped Musharraf in carrying out the coup, and were appointed by him in the first place. Did they become religious fanatics in one month? Religious fanatics rarely if ever make it past PMA; the few odd Generals who have become religious were more in line with JI, i.e. not fanatic. And they usually become so after becoming quite senior in the military; born again Muslims. The other is to realize that the military still is run by people like Musharraf, and consists of strong enough traditions where people can be superseded when not following policy. These people then resign (and don`t become OSDs) in line with tradition.
Take your pick. I personally don`t believe in conspiracy theories. But the genuises who claim expertise in Pakistan`s military, through third hand knowledge, will of course stick with the conspiracy theories. Primarily because that is the image that suits their interests. I feel sorry for such conspiracy theorists.
Why is it that people like Musharraf end up running the military, and not the religious fanatics, whom conspiracy theorists suggest are looming around freely in the Army. One would think at least two or three would have made it to COAS, in the Army, Navy or Air Force. The only one who made it was Zia, and he was a product of Bhutto, not a product of the military.
#45 Posted by Shima on October 9, 2001 11:45:53 pm
Sac#30
Well, you can`t stop Romair to post his gem of posts in a democratic process. What you can do is to stop reading them, which I have done long time back once he posted his analysis on India-Pakistan defence needs. No wonder Pakistani Army is in such a dire need of change.
Just look for the scroll down bar.
Well, you can`t stop Romair to post his gem of posts in a democratic process. What you can do is to stop reading them, which I have done long time back once he posted his analysis on India-Pakistan defence needs. No wonder Pakistani Army is in such a dire need of change.
Just look for the scroll down bar.
#44 Posted by Bhardwaj on October 9, 2001 11:45:53 pm
#: 39
kafir k khan
What the hell
Mamoo,Maa,Cousin,Mama,you talking about.
You are under delerium of Dhatura borrowed from your cousin MOMIN Rajput ,whose bastardized versions you are.
Or you had again Bhang Siddhi Charas & desi tharra that you are hallucinating garbage !!
kafir k khan
What the hell
Mamoo,Maa,Cousin,Mama,you talking about.
You are under delerium of Dhatura borrowed from your cousin MOMIN Rajput ,whose bastardized versions you are.
Or you had again Bhang Siddhi Charas & desi tharra that you are hallucinating garbage !!
#43 Posted by jay on October 9, 2001 11:45:53 pm
KAFERIAN LOGIC,
Till recently, the kafirs were worried about aircraft being hijacked. The detection devices focussed on the bomb, guns and big knives. Now it is a question of box cutters, scissors, and the attempt is to slam the aircraft to buildings. It is a new dimension, and the world is responding with bolted cockpits, sky marshals blah blah. In the earlier versions, the implicit value was that the hijackers really dont want to get killed. Now they are seeking death.
What the kafirs really need is to prepare for the next, and that is nuclear. The action required is obvious.
Till recently, the kafirs were worried about aircraft being hijacked. The detection devices focussed on the bomb, guns and big knives. Now it is a question of box cutters, scissors, and the attempt is to slam the aircraft to buildings. It is a new dimension, and the world is responding with bolted cockpits, sky marshals blah blah. In the earlier versions, the implicit value was that the hijackers really dont want to get killed. Now they are seeking death.
What the kafirs really need is to prepare for the next, and that is nuclear. The action required is obvious.
#42 Posted by jay on October 9, 2001 11:45:53 pm
The thick plottens.
Alliance staffer who took hijack call dead
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
EW DELHI: The Alliance Air employee who took an anonymous call which claimed a Mumbai-Delhi flight had been hijacked, died at his residence early Tuesday morning. Mohammed Shahnawaz Wani, 24, is suspected to have suffered a heart attack.
Wani, who had joined Alliance Air only in February this year, had been questioned by the police and other security agencies soon after the hijack drama ended on Thursday morning. Wani was the supervisor on duty at the airlines’ operations department when the call was received by him at 11.22 pm on October 3. He had passed on the information to his seniors, who finally got it relayed to the pilot of flight CD 7444, triggering a night-long drama.
Wani, besides working for the airlines, also held a pilot’s licence. To get such a licence, an absence of a history of heart ailment is mandatory, besides other requirements.
Wani’s death fuelled instant speculation on whether it had anything to do with ‘‘pressure’’ from security agencies soon after the call turned out to be a hoax. The police were quick to dismiss these speculations saying they had recorded Wani’s statement on October 6, and had asked him basic questions. ‘‘The only thing we were interested in was if he could recall any other detail which could help us to identify the caller,’’ a senior police officer said.
Alliance staffer who took hijack call dead
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
EW DELHI: The Alliance Air employee who took an anonymous call which claimed a Mumbai-Delhi flight had been hijacked, died at his residence early Tuesday morning. Mohammed Shahnawaz Wani, 24, is suspected to have suffered a heart attack.
Wani, who had joined Alliance Air only in February this year, had been questioned by the police and other security agencies soon after the hijack drama ended on Thursday morning. Wani was the supervisor on duty at the airlines’ operations department when the call was received by him at 11.22 pm on October 3. He had passed on the information to his seniors, who finally got it relayed to the pilot of flight CD 7444, triggering a night-long drama.
Wani, besides working for the airlines, also held a pilot’s licence. To get such a licence, an absence of a history of heart ailment is mandatory, besides other requirements.
Wani’s death fuelled instant speculation on whether it had anything to do with ‘‘pressure’’ from security agencies soon after the call turned out to be a hoax. The police were quick to dismiss these speculations saying they had recorded Wani’s statement on October 6, and had asked him basic questions. ‘‘The only thing we were interested in was if he could recall any other detail which could help us to identify the caller,’’ a senior police officer said.
#41 Posted by jay on October 9, 2001 11:45:53 pm
Bin Laden invokes ghosts of history
From L K Sharma
DH News Service
Washington, Oct 9
The most wanted man on the earth has done a fresh vanishing trick! He disappeared from the consciousness of the most powerful man in the world. Osama bin Laden did it with the same ease with which he had earlier entrenched himself into it.
President George Bush, who used to talk about this evil man ``wanted dead or alive``, has suddenly forgotten about the personification of the enemy. Now it is Osama, the unspeakable. This new development provoked questions and the White House spokesman had to explain that the war is not about Osama bin Laden.
The explanation made sense because on the same day, the US told the UN that it could attack countries other than Afghanistan. Mr Bush has done the right thing banishing Osama bin Laden from his chilling rhetoric. It takes care of all possible eventualities including new war goals. If bin Laden is killed or captured, will that be defined as ``success`` in the minds of Americans? And just in case he eludes the mightiest military machine, will it not be a great PR disaster, especially since Afghanistan has no other high-value assets to be demolished?
Osama bin Laden decided to retaliate for his exclusion by landing on the American small screen, addressing the nation, with a visible microphone in hand. No high technology there. A cave seemed to be the board room of what was officially described here as the holding company of Terrorism International. The backdrop was a rocky surface which could be real, unless, of course, some world-class designer had done it as a suitable prop when Osama was fighting another set of infidels, followers of the ``Godless`` communism.
After the terrorists struck America, experts pointed out that they had no specific demands and thus the attack was simply on all freedom-loving people. Bin Laden may have heard this on CNN. In his words directed against America, he came out with reasons for his war. He personified the enemy as the ``head of international infidels`` and raised the issues of injustice to Palestine, the dead and dying children of Iraq and the presence of the US troops in Saudi Arabia.
But more than that, he made a fleeting reference to forgotten history, not going back to the days of the Christian Crusades but to a much later event in the history of British imperialism. He said what America was tasting now is what Islamic nation has been tasting for more than 80 years. He also said ``the sword fell upon America after 80 years``.
What happened some 80 years ago? Bin Laden may have been referring to the division of the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire between the British and the French after World War I. In the British Library, they are said to be reading the text of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and also the Treaty of Sevres of 1920 which marked the end of the political order dominated by the Sultanate and Caliphate.
There was another historical reference in Bin Laden`s videotaped address to America. ``Let the whole world know that we shall never accept that the tragedy of Andalusia is repeated in Palestine``. This refers to the conquering of the Muslim Kingdom of Granada by Spain`s Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella.
All this shall remain in the realm of speculation till bin Laden explains it to Christiana Amanpour of CNN. George may pick Tony`s brains. The British have a better knowledge of all this and of the Middle East, once an area of influence of the Lawrence of Arabia.
From L K Sharma
DH News Service
Washington, Oct 9
The most wanted man on the earth has done a fresh vanishing trick! He disappeared from the consciousness of the most powerful man in the world. Osama bin Laden did it with the same ease with which he had earlier entrenched himself into it.
President George Bush, who used to talk about this evil man ``wanted dead or alive``, has suddenly forgotten about the personification of the enemy. Now it is Osama, the unspeakable. This new development provoked questions and the White House spokesman had to explain that the war is not about Osama bin Laden.
The explanation made sense because on the same day, the US told the UN that it could attack countries other than Afghanistan. Mr Bush has done the right thing banishing Osama bin Laden from his chilling rhetoric. It takes care of all possible eventualities including new war goals. If bin Laden is killed or captured, will that be defined as ``success`` in the minds of Americans? And just in case he eludes the mightiest military machine, will it not be a great PR disaster, especially since Afghanistan has no other high-value assets to be demolished?
Osama bin Laden decided to retaliate for his exclusion by landing on the American small screen, addressing the nation, with a visible microphone in hand. No high technology there. A cave seemed to be the board room of what was officially described here as the holding company of Terrorism International. The backdrop was a rocky surface which could be real, unless, of course, some world-class designer had done it as a suitable prop when Osama was fighting another set of infidels, followers of the ``Godless`` communism.
After the terrorists struck America, experts pointed out that they had no specific demands and thus the attack was simply on all freedom-loving people. Bin Laden may have heard this on CNN. In his words directed against America, he came out with reasons for his war. He personified the enemy as the ``head of international infidels`` and raised the issues of injustice to Palestine, the dead and dying children of Iraq and the presence of the US troops in Saudi Arabia.
But more than that, he made a fleeting reference to forgotten history, not going back to the days of the Christian Crusades but to a much later event in the history of British imperialism. He said what America was tasting now is what Islamic nation has been tasting for more than 80 years. He also said ``the sword fell upon America after 80 years``.
What happened some 80 years ago? Bin Laden may have been referring to the division of the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire between the British and the French after World War I. In the British Library, they are said to be reading the text of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and also the Treaty of Sevres of 1920 which marked the end of the political order dominated by the Sultanate and Caliphate.
There was another historical reference in Bin Laden`s videotaped address to America. ``Let the whole world know that we shall never accept that the tragedy of Andalusia is repeated in Palestine``. This refers to the conquering of the Muslim Kingdom of Granada by Spain`s Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella.
All this shall remain in the realm of speculation till bin Laden explains it to Christiana Amanpour of CNN. George may pick Tony`s brains. The British have a better knowledge of all this and of the Middle East, once an area of influence of the Lawrence of Arabia.
#40 Posted by hxn on October 9, 2001 11:45:53 pm
Romair
You’re lack of clear thinking never ceases to amaze me, but I guess one shouldn’t be surprised when listening to a person from a place as contradictory as pakistan.
Saying that the sanctions against iraq caused the WTC attacks is precisely why muslims are viewed as terrorists.
Although I concede that they probably haven’t been as effective as one would have hoped and that the allies should have killed saddam hussein during the gulf war, the sanctions were designed to prevent a tyrannous dictator from being a threat to neighboring countries – a dictator who, I might add, has butchered millions of his own people – some with chemical weapons – doing far more damage then what sanctions have done.
That muslims could blame a free and democratic america for islam’s failure to create paradise on earth is evidence of a severe psychosis throughout the muslim world. double think and the constant victim mentality of people in the muslim world, as demonstrated in your posts, is precisely why islamic peoples across the globe are in generally a miserably state. Stand up and take responsibility for your actions!
Now the real question is whether musharref is prepared to acknowledge that the pakistan-sponsored terrorists in kashmir are one and the same with the taliban and al queda and that they too need to be wiped out. If they can’t admit it, I’m sure india will press the point.
You’re lack of clear thinking never ceases to amaze me, but I guess one shouldn’t be surprised when listening to a person from a place as contradictory as pakistan.
Saying that the sanctions against iraq caused the WTC attacks is precisely why muslims are viewed as terrorists.
Although I concede that they probably haven’t been as effective as one would have hoped and that the allies should have killed saddam hussein during the gulf war, the sanctions were designed to prevent a tyrannous dictator from being a threat to neighboring countries – a dictator who, I might add, has butchered millions of his own people – some with chemical weapons – doing far more damage then what sanctions have done.
That muslims could blame a free and democratic america for islam’s failure to create paradise on earth is evidence of a severe psychosis throughout the muslim world. double think and the constant victim mentality of people in the muslim world, as demonstrated in your posts, is precisely why islamic peoples across the globe are in generally a miserably state. Stand up and take responsibility for your actions!
Now the real question is whether musharref is prepared to acknowledge that the pakistan-sponsored terrorists in kashmir are one and the same with the taliban and al queda and that they too need to be wiped out. If they can’t admit it, I’m sure india will press the point.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- nb: Sadna, I know MP... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- tahmed32: #70 hamidm: you wrote... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 33 You... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- KaalChakra: DM ji, we will... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 102 Do... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 102 Problem is... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 104 Quetta will... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 94 Jokingly... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
